A confluence of brain-spew on matters and events - political, violent, religious, artistic, and or perplexing.

Follow by Email

There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Tax the Millionaires

photo from the movie, "Wall Street"

It's been awhile, but in demanding new taxes on millionaires and an end to the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250K, President Obama has stood up for something we can rally behind. If only he doesn't give in to the Republicans in the coming months. He can use his pulpit to dispel their hollow claims that taxes on the rich freeze economic and job growth.

If Obama and progressive Democrats speak honestly and forcefully about the lopsided distribution of wealth and income in the U.S., they may be wildly successful. In an article, "Wealth, Income, and Power", updated in July, 2011, G. William Domhoff points to a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) that

"reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution is as concentrated as it is..... They did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States.

Americans from all walks of life were also united in their vision of what the "ideal" wealth distribution would be, which may come as an even bigger surprise than their shared misinformation on the actual wealth distribution. They said that the ideal wealth distribution would be one in which the top 20% owned between 30 and 40 percent of the privately held wealth, which is a far cry from the 85 percent that the top 20% actually own. They also said that the bottom 40% -- that's 120 million Americans -- should have between 25% and 30%, not the mere 8% to 10% they thought this group had, and far above the 0.3% they actually had. In fact, there's no country in the world that has a wealth distribution close to what Americans think is ideal when it comes to fairness. So maybe Americans are much more egalitarian than most of them realize about each other, at least in principle and before the rat race begins"

Domhoff points to recent income studies that would knock the socks off most Americans if they knew......

"The rising concentration of income can be seen in a special New York Times analysis by David Cay Johnston of an Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income had grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. (Johnston, 2006).

But the increase in what is going to the few at the top did not level off, even with all that. As of 2007, income inequality in the United States was at an all-time high for the past 95 years, with the top 0.01% -- that's one-hundredth of one percent -- receiving 6% of all U.S. wages, which is double what it was for that tiny slice in 2000; the top 10% received 49.7%, the highest since 1917 (Saez, 2009). However, in an analysis of 2008 tax returns for the top 0.2% -- that is, those whose income tax returns reported $1,000,000 or more in income (mostly from individuals, but nearly a third from couples) -- it was found that they received 13% of all income, down slightly from 16.1% in 2007 due to the decline in payoffs from financial assets (Norris, 2010)."